it doesn't help in iraq or afghanistan, and we basically have a stalemate between russia and china. nuclear weapons have not been used since world war ii. they likely never will be, so why do we need land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles, bombers and submarine launched delivery systems, all three of them? do we really need 12 new strategic submarines that will cost almost $5 billion a year if we're lucky and contain costs? who actually is being deterred by this massive spending and buildup? exactly what are the circumstances 30 years from now that call for this massive stockpile of weapons and three redundant delivery systems? you know, recent articles in the "post" by walter, i think really focused on this, ordained priest in the "post," g.a.o. reports, you don't have to dig very deeply to find out that this is a bloated, flawed program with little tactical benefit for us now and a great deal of fiscal pain currently and well into the future. 1 years ago, president -- 21 years ago, president george h.w. bush unilaterally announced land-based tactical nuclear weapons statio